Pages

Sunday, March 1, 2015

For me, the original Star Trek is the science-fiction equivalent of the Beatles and William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy are the Lennon/McCartney of the franchise. (Does that Make DeForest Kelley the Enterprise's George Harrison?) Leonard Nimoy's passing has reminded me just how much Trek has meant to me since I first encountered it (in glorious black and white. We didn't make the jump to a color set for a few more years) during its original run and what an incredible impact it's had on so many lives. Of course Nimoy was far more than a pointy-eared Vulcan. He performed a wide variety of roles over the years: I remember seeing him on Broadway, back in the 70's, playing Doctor Dysart in Equus and, more recently, being delighted by his appearances on Fringe as the mysterious William Bell. Nimoy was also a poet, a photographer, a political activist, patron of the arts and, by most accounts, a man of heart and integrity. The internet is filled with tributes but (for me, at least) there's nothing anyone can say that would be more heartfelt and eloquent than Doctor McCoy's words—written, I suspect, by the great Nicholas Meyer—at the end of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: "He's not really dead as long as we remember him."Heartfelt condolences to Leonard Nimoy's friends and family.

57 comments:

I had an emergency last week and my wife and youngest son and i had to drive to Florida for a family funeral. The entire time I heard nothing about this until I got home. I was sad to hear this and surprised that I heard nothing of this on the news.

I like the Lennon/McCartney comparison. I believe it was Nimoy who's said that he and Shatner had a competitive relationship, each one always trying to one up the other on the show, and the result is they brought out the best in themselves and their characters. So it's a Lennon/McCartney relationship with a happier ending, if you will, as they went on to do their best work together on the films.

I think fans love Nimoy so much because he respected their intelligence. If he hadn't trusted his audience, he would have undoubtedly oversold them on Spock's emotions. Instead, he trusted they'd understand the subtle cues he sent out through body language and intonation.

Wanted to touch base on the most recent issues of JLD and Trinity of Sin. I liked how all the heroes were given a chance at paradise and turned it down. I also liked how paradise seemed similar yet completely different. Just a subtle reminder of how much I will miss both of these books.

Also sorry to hear of the passing of Harve Bennett—who produced STAR TREK II, III. IV and V. In many ways, he was the man who saved the franchise after STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE. Losing him only days after Nimoy makes this all the sadder.

It is always a pleasure to bring attention to Ann Nocenti though, especially her Daredevil stories. Daredevil is one of my favorite characters, and her run was some of, if not the very first stories of his I read. That really unique style, that was so unlike any other voice in comics really made me a fan of the character. So for that I guess I sort of owe her.

Though it is unfair that her most well known writing was for Daredevil, The era before volume 2, far too often begins with Frank Miller. Yes he was great, but so were Ann, Denny O'Neil, Karl Kessel, that guy who came in after the black suit/armor area and played around with his psyche/ color scheme (what ever happened to him any way), and Roger Mckenzie... who is way too often forgotten. Of course, as I said, Nocenti has a special place for me.

It is part of why I get so annoyed when people (often non-comic readers) say there hasn't been a female presence in comics. Has it been less than it should be? Maybe (if more men read comics it would make sense that more would want to go into the field, but I haven't seen the sales demographics to say either way) Would more be good? Of course, more talented writers is always good for a story telling medium. But let's not forget those who were there and pretend like comic readers have been trying to force them out.

For God's sake, Vertigo is a favorite for a lot of people, for many years, and it hasn't been the same (in tone or in readers hearts) since Berger left. Then of course there are the, yes lesser in number, but still great writers.

One of the things I always liked, and respected, about Ann's work was the fact that, right from the start, she had her own voice, her own style. Not an easy thing to do. Part of that was because Ann wasn't steeped in comics, she wasn't trying to regurgitate stories she read as a kid. The other part was that Ann...was Ann. She had her unique point of view on life, the universe and everything and her work always reflected, and still reflects, that.

Look, you don't have to sell me on Nocenti. I remember reading in an interview once that the first time that she really saw a comic was around the time she saw an ad for an assistant editor. She then said that she saw it as subversive. At that moment I thought, "well, that explains it."

An important thing about her comics writing I think is that, yes she was one of the few female writers at the time, but she was also in the minority of writers who discovered them after their acne cleared up. That probably informed a little bit. If nothing else, made her less constrained by certain elements. What's with all the past tense, she probably still does.

Yes, Ann is still active and doing strong work, most of it, in recent years, for DC.

I first met her when she was the assistant editor during my run on DEFENDERS: the comics world was very new to her then, but she mastered it soon enough. Along with the fine writing, she was also an excellent editor. In fact she edited one of my all-time favorite projects, the GREENBERG THE VAMPIRE graphic novel.

I think, in the end, that it's the story. I don't care if it's written by a left handed, half blind, transgender, plaid, panda bear. Being written by a specific gender, color, sexual preference does not make a story better or worse. It is the story that matters. I remember when this would haven't even been a point of discussion. Oh and Ann's run on Daredevil was awesome!

I remember hearing that Vertigo never made that much money, and that it wasn't really intended to do that. The larger goals were to keep writers from going to indie comics by giving them a place to own work and do less mainstream work, attract Eisners, and most importantly groom and new talent. I don't know if that is true, but it does appear that way from the outside.

If that is the truth, then I not only think that was a great idea and it should still be used, but also that it could be a way to bring back anthology comics.

Let's say Marvel decided to bring back Strange Tales, they could use it for this very process. If they took a page from Silver age Marvel, and used a well known superhero (or rotating ones) as an anchor, they could then fill up the the rest of the book with other types of stories, lesser known characters, genre fiction, or slice of life. You could invite comic greats to tell a story or two an issue. The rest of the book for new talent.

The best way to do this would be to have the well-known character be sort of out of continuity, allowing for more freedom... or at least dedicate it to less regular stories. Also making it larger than usual, and with no ads (no great loss since most are house ads anyway) would draw people in. Leaving the rest for misc. stories and have people who want those kinds coming back for those.

Will it break the bank? Oh, Hell no, it will probably be a loss. But that isn't the point. Books like Batman and X-men probably account for most of the profits anyways, with even the most read second stringers in the distance. The point would be for the book to be an investment.

Of course with even Vertigo losing that quality post-Berger, my guess it that there are a fair share of bean counters or somebody shaking their heads at that type of idea. A real shame.

Vertigo evolved far more naturally, and less self-consciously, than that, Jack. Karen Berger was editing a group of books that reflected her unique sensibility; books that really existed in their own subset. DC made the decision to give Karen her own imprint to build on that sensibility.

Happy to say that my graphic novel, MERCY (which is coming out in a new edition soon) was part of that initial Vertigo launch. It was an exciting time.

Like I said, it was just what I heard, of course I never had any doubt that the origins were nothing more than a person trying to create comics that they wanted to read and maybe show the potential of the medium.

You could see DC heading towards Vertigo before that. The Post-Crisis era, and I mean directly post-Crisis, was a point when DC was expanding into older themes and more diverse stories. Vertigo seemed to be an understanding on DC's part that there was a market that should be exploited. Once again, wasn't there.

All that being said, however it may have evolved artistically in a more pure fashion, there is still a possible truth to what I heard. If Vertigo really didn't make a decent amount of money, why keep it going. Now I haven';t seen the sales figures, but I do know a lot of stores bought small amounts of even their top selling book post-Sandman... Hellblazer. Those reasons I mentioned probably weren't the origin (never really thought so) but rather the reason why it kept going. All the talent in the world doesn't mean much in business if there isn't a flow of cash coming in.

You may be right, Jack. I know that—for instance—when we did the sequel to MOONSHADOW...FAREWELL, MOONSHADOW...Paul Levitz said to Karen Berger (not an exact quote), "I don't know if we'll make any money on this, but we should publish it anyway." And that, I think, was often the attitude. Vertigo brought a lot of prestige and acclaim to DC andthat certainly contributed to its continuing growth.

That said, if the line was doing terribly, really losing money, it would have never stayed around. It's a fine balancing act.

You sort of proved the first two things I heard. The third, about grooming holds water anyway, when you look at how much of the talent from he 2000s started... or at least started mainstream... with Vertigo.

Anyway, that is why I think that thought process of "I don't know if we'll make any money on this, but we should publish it anyway." is good for comics. Not for every project, but for some. Vertigo was always about (on the readers side anyway) love of a medium.

That is why I think it could work for anthologies. Vertigo always seemed, whether intentional or not, about investing in the medium.

A sign that comics still aren't respected in Hollywood is that the documentary world has looked past to rich source. Think how many great documentaries their could be. Sure There have been overview ones and a Stan Lee one, but their is so much more.

-The Rise and Fall of EC Comics.-The early days of Timely.-Many Golden Age personalities could get their own. Guys like Bill Everett, Jerry Siegel, Bill Finger, and Jack Cole could carry an hour and a half easy.-The birth of Indie comics.-Dave Sim, who I may not agree with some of his views, but is undeniably fascinating.

You could make a 30-part PBS series without a minute of dullness. Go back in time to the pulps moving forward, and HAve Roy Thomas as a guiding hands, and people go nuts for it.

Might even boost sales a bit. How many people went out and bought books about the Roosevelts after that doc. came out?

Yes, lots of topics to be mined. That said, PBS did a very nice documentary series on comics last year (the name of which escapes me), that traced the history of American comics from their beginnings.

A few years back I participated in an excellent Canadian series (I think it was eight or ten episodes) that really took an in-depth look at the comics scene. So they're out there; but I agree: there could be so much more.

I believe the PBS program was called the Superheroes, and I remember it being very similar to the History channel special "Comic book Heroes: Unmasked." I found it underwhelming. Of course as a fan, I already know quite a bit, so it may be a tad unfair.

There was also a special ABC did that devolved to an add for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Comics can't even be the focus of their own special anymore.

As for the Canadian ones... I may live north, south, and west of them, but I still am bound to US TV most of the time so I'll have to take your word.

Though I can see how this would play out, first multi-chapter episodes.

Chapter1: Before the storm- A look at pulps and comic strips. Who were the ongoing characters, what things made them, and what parts the genre specific titles of pulps led to how we know comic books. And of course them men who created them. Walter Gibson, Lester Dent, H.P. Lovecraft, L. Ron Hubbard, and Harry Steeger could probably fill up there own.

Chapter 2: Those American Boys- A look at the Golden Age creators that made it big. A look at the creators, how their personalities and experiences crafted larger than life characters, and just who they were. The faults and the grandeur of the men. Flesh them out as people.

Chapter 3: Our time is now! - The rise of the superhero, and how they became the dominant part of the medium. How they affected and were affected by the Depression and World War II. The tales of Social Justice that are often forgotten, the strange diversity, the gimmicks and uniting against a common enemy. And of course how the mob funded America's most well known icon.

Chapter 4: Post War Blues - The decline of superheroes and loss of personality for the two biggest characters, and the only two to survive for a while. Also a look at the strange career and boom of the Spirit in this time.

Chapter 5: The Rise and Fall of EC comics. Spotlighting EC and their fascinating history, and daring tales. How they eventually died out. A look at how genre comics rose in an era were comics for a while continued to grow despite a lack of superheroes. Then the shrinking and eventually Wertham's book and the Senate vs. comics. Comic book creators losing jobs, turning to advertisement, and even homelessness.

Chapter 6: The return of the masks. DC bringing back superheroes and the rest of the companies chasing fads.

Chapter 8: The Revolution Has arrived - A look at what baby boomers did. The rise of Creepy. What the now older audience expects, and what happens when those who grew up as fans take the helm. The more experimental and less usual tales of the 70s. How the disillusionment of the 60s shaped ideas, and hoe the less optimistic 70s (especially the New York of the 70s) leaked in. The earliest days of indies. Graphic Novels are born.

Chapter 9: The slowing wheel - The complications of the early 80s and how the editorial control, trying again to appeal to kids, and eventually big events led to Independents getting more common, and graphic novels being adopted by the big two.

Chapter 10: Adults are Obsolete kids. !985 and beyond. Comics all but give up on the idea of kids. The big two start taking a page from indies. Vertigo comes. Things get diverse again.

Chapter 11: Boom and Bust. Comics get gritty. Artists become superstars. Rise of non-character characters, editorial control tightens. Independent no longer means small. The projects that keep the torch going. The speculator boom.

Chapter 12: After the Fall - The damage done by the speculator boom. The industry in its knees, and the shedding of grim and gritty for a return of the heroic.

Chapter 13: It is the future. What Now? The new millennium. Longer stories. Grim is back. Events rule the day. The role of movies. And the question of just what comics are, and what role they play in a world where SoundBits and quick definitions trump depth, and the difficulty of cramming 50 years of character development into 2hours.

They could have fans of stories summarizing, and even doing readings, and ginning their analysis of comic stories. Even animating some of them. Really drive home why the stories matter. Creators and scholars on the subject can talk about how it all came in. What they planned and what was subconscious. Have comic fans that work in other media, and have gained respect talk about why comics matter, the affect it had, and what the characters meant to them.

I mean come on, the world needs to see that Namor was born out of Everett's drinking problem. Think doesn't he act very similar to a drunk. Jack

Something very strange has been happening in the media touching comics recently. I was watching Walking Dead (a comic I admittedly dropped a while ago, and a TV show I don't have a strong connection to) and their leader acted as quite the authoritarian... almost totalitarian. Someone I know who continues to read the comic said this is not how it is, and that the show is now written for the TV fans with comic fans not present in any minds.

I also recently caught Avengers on TV recently and noticed that the heroic SHIELD agents who fight against HYDRA in Captain America: The Winter Soldier and I hear Agents of SHIELD, don't act all that differently. In the course of that movie alone heroes are forced, manipulated, hacked, and abducted into joining tjhe team.

Then look at Batman's behavior in catching Joker in Dark Knight, and Gotham's suspension of rights in the wake of it we learn about in Dark Knight Rises.

It is sort of uncomfortable as to why a society would want this. As a comic fan it is even more upsetting, though in a different way. Superheroes, either intentionally or not, grew out of an anti-totalitarian (and specifically anti-Fascist) view, despite Mr. Chabon's very inaccurate view of both superheroes and Fascism.

The mere act of having a secret identity combats the idea. These people with powers or skills beyond the average man with to still be among them, not rule. The are reactive, only entering a fray in defense of others. The only rules they really enforce are the belief that people shouldn't cause harm to others.

Just an uncomfortable look at our society these days.

Though it reminds me of something else...about Superman. While there are some stories I do like, 1950s Superman to now is hardly my a comic a make an effort to seek out. However I do really like the Golden Age Superman. However, it someone where to truly capture the Spirit of the man of Steel's creators they would be accused of deconstructing and and trying to grittily darken Superman. Kind of weird, huh? Only in comics.

I remember being astonished when I came across those early Superman stories some years ago, Jack. What a different Superman from the one I grew up with. The story where Supes tricks the army into demolishing the Metropolis slums is one of my all-time favorites.

That said, I leo the innocent, imaginative, playful Superman stories of the 50's and 60's. In many way, it's a total different character, but they're so much fun. And fun is a quality missing from many comics today.

Hmm, I would have thought you'd run with the odd rooting for authoritarian views, but whatever.

My mother, being in the prime age group, still has a very fond memory of the 50s and early 60s Superman. Once I started reading comics she decided to replace all the ones my Grandmother through away. She never paid a lot for them, or collecting in huge numbers, but she got at least a fair amount... maybe a longbox worth (including a few trades).

I respected the imaginative stories, but I couldn't get into it. I like Captain America so, I actually dig the idea of a hero with a pure sense heroism. It was Superman's naivety, lack of personality, and being Way, Way , WAAAAAY too powerful. Unfortunately, many of those problems didn't go away, partially because that was the TV show's way. Sure, there are some stories of his I really love, but still not really on my radar.

So I was astonished when I found the GA Superman too. About the time Gerard Jones book came out, so did Superman Chronicles ( a cheap reprint of Superman stories in chronological order). Since I had become very interested in Jerry Siegel from the book, I picked up the Superman book.

I was stoked. in that one book he took on a wife beater, a man who abused his workers, mad scientists, and a guy who switched minds. I was surprised... I liked Superman. I always respected him as the first, but assumed he was an anachronism (like most people). I was very pleasantly surprised, and still want that Superman to return. Like I said though it would be called getting Grim and gritty in hopes of deconstruction.

here is a song to reflect the best of Superman, the problem people have with him, and why he shouldn't be forgotten.

I understand why you wouldn't necessarily connect with those classic Superman stories; but, when I was a kid, they really enchanted me. There was such innocence, and such a sense of wonder, about them. And there was more plot in some of those eight/ten page stories than you can find in six months of some of today's comics.

I have a vague memory of really liking reruns of the George Reeves Superman when I was a a really little kid. However when I actually started reading comics (still really young, but not AS young) Marvel was where I landed. With those character heavy stories.... well, wonder is great but the Fantastic Four has wonder and a really human rock monster.

I agree about stories now though. When I think about how much was in F.F. #1, and how much little is in comics now, it boggles the mind. those would be a year of stories now. I remember Walt Simonson saying once that he is pressured to write for trades in recent years, but he still strives to make people they got a complete experience per issue. Honestly, if you are charging anything (let alone $4.00) the least you could do is try to make people feel that they got their money's worth.

I know this will seem like sucking up, given whose site I'm on, but comics like JLD, Trinity of Sin, and Spider-man 2099 by Peter David(come on it can't all be about you) make me feel like I got something complete, even if it is only a chapter. That really does mean a lot to readers. We may want to read the next chapter, but not because the current one feels incomplete.

Hell, I read a back issue of Creepy a few days ago, where stories are like 9 pages, and was completely satisfied with the tale. And that was the 70s, when the days of less than 1 issue were way passed common place.

I think the decompressed stories worked well for a while honestly, but I do think that their time has passed. Not for any lack of talent, just from time progressing forward, however the big two and the big two indie companies seem to not see it that way.

When I started in comics, Jack, my way to break in was by writing stories for the DC anthologies (HOUSE OF MYSTERY, WEIRD WAR TALES, etc.): crafting little five, six, eight pages stories. It was the perfect way to learn the craft of comics and it was amazing HOW MUCH STORY you could get into an eight page story. Some of those shorts could be expanded into novels.

It seems at times like comics are doing everything they can to prevent no writers from coming in, but that really doesn't matter.

The fact is I think decompression served a purpose, and had some very good stories. The problem is that like any medium comics ebb and flow. In the 70s social commentary comics were big, they eventually feel by the wayside. There are still comics that deal with real world issues well, but not like that, in the 70s every writer had one, and every comic had a few, Hell, there were even comics known and still admired for being just that.

Decompression had people waiting for the next issue to complete the story, something which Marvel, and comics in general, desperately needed at the time. It also lead to an increased in trades giving another route for people wanting to read the comics, but couldn't make it to the store every week.

With comic movies made so readily now, and TV shows being made, fans might not want that anymore. Big is everywhere, readers probably want something differing from how heroes are portrayed in the media adopting them.

Unfortunately, the people who started that were so convinced it was the future and the way things should be that they won't let other ways come into play. And of course trade sales, but I don't understand why you can't just have multiple stories in a trade instead.

By the way, we talked about the Golden Age Superman. Did you ever read Superman: War of the Worlds? It is a Roy Thomas story about the Golden Age Superman taking on the martians from the Orson Welles Radio drama. It is a really good story.

Its a good story, and it has everything you could want in a superman story; epic struggles, imagination, being powerful but not too powerful, selfless heroism, and that classic golden age edge. One interesting part is how he is treated when they find out he is an alien. Roy Thomas certainly did not lose his skill.

I don't believe Orson is in it, except for maybe a background character.

Since we are talking about the Man of Tomorrow, you've written some of his tales. What of your works for Krypton's last son would you recommend above all others?

Hmmm. I'd probably pick two prestige format (remember those?) mini-series: WHERE IS THY STING? and THE KANSAS SIGHTING. My run on ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN run didn't really work for me, for a number of reasons (none of which I can go into here). And, even though the original, wonderful story was Alan Moore's, I'm very happy with the way my JUSTICE LEAGUE UNLIMITED adaptation of "For The Man Who Has Everything" turned out.

But my favorite may be SPEEDING BULLETS. Can't beat Kal-El being found by the Wayne family...

I already have Speeding Bullets. I once but those prestige formats for my mother. Since she is a voracious reader and has a long time love of Superman, I'll occasionally grab some Superman issues from the back-issue bins to add to her gifts for holidays or birthdays as a bonus. I grabbed those specifically because of the Dematteis name. IO flipped through them and they looked interesting... especially Jonathon's conversation with Clark (that was years ago, it was a quick pass, and I still remember it).

One thing I really remember about Speeding Bullets was the end, where "Bruce" flies off to a better tomorrow away from the darkness, both literal and metaphorical in his life. I don't remember why, but I really needed it at that point.

I picked up "The Kansas Sightings," yesterday. I have not gotten a chance to read it yet.

I did however read JLD. It was pretty good. A nice ending to the series. Also a descent goodbye for John Constantine's month-to-month days.

Yes there is a new book starring John, and it finally has the name Hellblazer back in the title. However, recent decisiopn made, including long his trademark coat because it "makes him look like a creeper" (which is weird since depending on how you mean he is supposed to be a creep), the phasing away of his smoking, sanitizing of his origin to less interesting version, making him play with the better known superheroes,and most importantly, the reducing of his pirckish nature that I noticed in the last series, the question isn't if he'll have a book, but rather if I'll be reading it. It would seem to me (admittedly an outsider) DC is making up for lost time and trying to do all the revamping they couldn't in his Vertigo days.

I didn't read speeding bullets when it came out, more like 5 years ago. So the effect wasn't that long ago.

I'll hopefully get around to the Kansas Sightings this weekend. They also had "Death Where is they Sting," but it came in a pack with a few other comics. I'm going to try to talk them into selling me just the one next week.

It is funny. I talked bout how what I would love is Superman's golden age personality, and that is probably something that could really help DC. With all his social do-goodery, that could be a really big selling point. There is a lot of talk about unfair practices towards the less economically advantaged these days. I don't want to get into if that is true or not, because if we agree it can only end poorly getting into it here.

There is a market for it. The question is how do you get in their hands? Some pundit would go off about how the great American icon is becoming propaganda. Of course Superman was never REALLY an economic radical, he didn't try to redistribute anything, he merely made sure the downtrodden were treated well. It doesn't matter though, people will buy it just to see what the controversy is about... especially if it isn't just a one off thing.

So jhow does DC avoid alienating long time fans? You can't you will always alienate someone. However you can prevent people from saying that they are bastardizing a classic character by reprinting some of those old stories (which were like 5 pages right?) in the back to show it IS in his characterization.

Given that, post-conversance, DC says they're not bound by continuity, they could (conceivably) do one book focusing on a Superman who evokes the original: a tough, pugnacious Jimmy Cagney of a superhero who fights for the underdog. Hell, I think it would be great to have several versions of Superman in different books. But, yes, the continuity freaks might implode.

Re: HELLBLAZER. We'll see what the new book brings. I never like to judge something before it actually comes out.

I plan on giving Hellblazer a chance, I'm just not very optimistic. I am hopeful that with the TV show gone (though I did like it... more or less) they may be less concerned with making him likable. I do think it was stupid of DC to leak ideas like John losing his coat. If that kind of thing is to be a success it has to just happen organically.

You would also have to reduce superman's power levels to the original levels to make my idea work.

As for post-convergence, that idea kind of feed my idea that Convergence (and I guess post) is going to be market research, for when they put things back together again.

I got a chance to read "The Kansas Sightings," ans you said you wanted to hear what I thought.

First, I was shocked by the year it come out... 2003. It seemed like an should have come out in 1997 or so, because it was like an X-Files episode. Not just in plot, but also the feel of it. Of course I liked the X-files so that was actually a pleasant surprise which helped me get into a story about a character who was not on the top of my list. It did feel almost like a companion piece to Batman: Abduction.

One thing I took notice of was Superman's view of his parentage. Superman has been compared and called many things. An example of the immigrant experience, which is odd since not remembering Krypton the experience would be lacking, and even had comparisons drawn to Moses, which is VERY false, since Moses did not become the hero of the Egyptians, but rather of the people he was born to. There is one thing that Superman is almost always... adopted.

Being descended from an adoptee, I have noticed an odd view of adoption, including a deep fascination and protective view. For all the talk of evolving families, the idea of a heterosexual couple adopting a child still seems foreign. There is always a view that it isn't really there child on some level. Part of what annoyed me about Man of Steel (aside form the needless bleakness), was this seeming leaning towards the power and importance of biological connection, leaving the moral fiber and heroic nature imparted by Pa Kent that was an important to the mythos for years lost.

So, having a story about Superman and his biological father had me apprehensive. Adoptive parents are the real parents, that is who the emotions and caring are for . However, that being said, it doesn't mean that there is no wondering about their origins. There almost always is. Through out the story, for all the concern about who Jor-el was, it is shown that Ma and Pa are who he thinks of as his parents. It is also does not beat us over the head with it.

Of course, I never want to be one to push an agenda. Whether I agree with such points isn't the point. The story is.

As for the overall story... I liked it. It was an interesting idea. It was enjoyable. The story flowed well and kept me interested.

One interesting point is the views on Superman. The woman who didn't trust him. This idea has been done quite a bit in the past few decades, but this isn't the military, it is just one woman, and the part that I really liked, is that superman agreed that someone should be skeptical of him. There should be someone questioning everyone. Although, looking at that publishing date, I can't hope but wonder how much of the news of the day fed that point, with certain news outlets saying that we should just trust the government no matter what.

Glad I bought it.

Jack

P.S. Clark was wrong in the comic. Being a reporter does require skepticism.

Glad you enjoyed it, Jack, and thanks, as always, for you insights. The story came less from my love of X-FILES (and I was a huge fan) and more from my fascination with the various interpretations of the UFO abduction experience. But, of course, those two things certainly cross!

I don't remember Clark's line, but, hey, if you say he was wrong, that's okay with me! : )

Thanks again for taking the time to read, and comment on, the work. Always appreciated.

I bet that when you said that throw away comment about wanting to know what I thought about the book you didn't expect to get a lot of weird info about my family and a strange view on the nature of the American family, did you? If you go multi-generationial though, it is actually eerie how much my family has in common with Clark Kent.

I wouldn't expect you to have as much knowledge of the details as I do. You wrote it... well, let's not count the years.... But, I read it two days ago.